Central Asian

they do look like their ancestors 

( check out the singer Ben deniz  she is very Central Asian)

i think the Mongols had wider eyes than the chines

like Catherine Zeta-Jones in Ocean 12  ( when she was sleeping)

Most Turks from Turkiye do look Central Asian.  Alot do look European though, probably because lots of Turks have mixed with  Greeks or Armenians.  I'm a Turk from Turkiye and I look very Central Asian, I have been mistaken for a Uygur and a Kazak many times.

Get a clue. Most turks on the coast lines are converted Greeks and now are part of the Turkish mainstream. The Turkish basketball team doenst look central asian? ALL the important political figures have the European Medditteranian look, not the Central Asian look. If i am wrong, which in some cases I could be, all i no is all the turks i have seen do not have a Central Asian look.

What are you talking about ? how can a kazak look like turkish ?weird ! kazak are mor mongolian looking !uyhgur's ancestor is oghus ,(Tiele ) ,the same with nowday turkish ,but later they moved to Xinkiang ,mixed with tochorien (indu european),could be similar ,I put some pics in uyghur image)! Uzbek is part of GOlden horde ,later mixed with persian .Tajik is dirctely decended from persian !

Kyrkiz is the same with Kazak ,at least I cannot tell the difference !

In most of sorces ,the conception of turk is refering to turkish and turkic ,

but now turk is sort of refering to turkish in Turkey !

Turkish is from seljuk turk ,they are from central asia,but that is the thing happened 1 thousand years ago!Imposible for turkish look like central asian ,maybe similiar with tajik ,uyhgur ,uzbek ,.but impossiale with kazka,kirkiz!

Turkish are more like Euoropean !

It is up to your definition to "Turk". Today, it is recognized as the citizens of Turkey, but in general term, it means all the inheritors of G�kt�rk Khanate which occupied lands between the eastern sea and northern baspian sea...

So it is a very hard thing to define "Turk". Because the Oguz Turks lived in the western terrattorries of the khanate and their western tribes (��ok) werent mongolic. They were the builders of Seljuk Empire, Ottoman Empire and Turkey. The Eastern Oguz was "Bozok" and they are todays Turkmenistan's people. Azerbaijan Turks are Oguz mixed with Persians and Caucasians.

Todays "Turks" in Anatolia are mixed with native Anatolians in specific terrattorries. The Eastern Anatolian Turks are mixed with Persians, Armenians, Caucasians and Kurds. The Southeastern are mixed with Persians and Kurds. The Northern Anatolian Turks are mixed with Laz, �erkez and Georgians. And the western and southwestern coasts of Turkey were the ancient lands of greeks so they are very mixed with greeks. Also in Istanbul, there lives lots of nations ( Jews, Greeks, Balkanians) from the Ottoman and Bzynthine periods, so they are mixed very much that today a tourist in Istanbul will possibly think that Turks have European ethnic roots!!!!!

But there are lots of non mixed Turks living in all regions of Turkey and they dont look like a European nor a Middle Eastern, nor a Medeterinnean. It is true that they aren't pulled eyed, because their ancestors weren't...

The main reason that the most political civilians of Turkey dont look like a non European, because these people have more opportunities in Turkish system ( since the Ottoman period !) and Anatolian real Turks were being pressed and used as human sources ( since the later Ottoman periods too!) and BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT NO REAL TURK HAVE RULED TURKS SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE OTTOMAN PERIOD...

I am sorry but this is nonsense. Pretty much all Turks in Turkey are mixed. It is very rare to see anyone that resembles an asian person. The Kazaks and the Kyrgyz, and actually the Mongols, probably look the closest to the original Turks that swarmed out of ancient Mongolia. Just take one look at the ilustrations of the Seljuk leaders and you will see that they all looked fully asian. Look at *any* ancient illustrations of Turkic people, including the illustrations that people in Vienna made when the ottoman army was besieging them....the ottomans are portrayed as asian looking including their eyes and faces! The leaders were mixed, but it seems as if the general population and army was still very asian looking back then.

Turks in Turkey have to stop denying this fact and stop claiming that their ancestors were any different from the Mongols. Turkic ancestors were fully asian, there can be no doubt about it and there was and cannot have been much genetic difference between Turks and Mongols. Why are so many Turks in Turkey so afraid to find out that their ancestors were asian looking just like the mongols? 

There has been a lot of mixing going on in the Turkic world and the Turks in Turkey are probably the most mixed of the whole bunch and the most ignorant, too, when it comes to figuring out what their cultural ancestors looked like (of course there are many exceptions). For some reason most people in Turkey seem to think that their ancestors came to Asia Minor looking exactly like the mixed population of Turkey today....

Mustafa

Here is a nice looking Kazak girl (from East Turkestan in China) and that's what all of the turkic ancestors looked like before the "great mixing." Beautiful!

she is beautifull i agree

but i've seen some pictures of the turkish in china and they have a wider eyes than this girl

but with the same type of nose.

Well...all I know about Turkish girls are that they are generally hot.  And most I've met had no slanted eyes   A bit dark skinned, black haired, and some have blue eyes. 

According to what I've heard, they are supposed to be Altaic, meaning they have the same heritage as Mongols or something like that.

Chono,

Most of the time they have NOT been described as any special looking people. Just barbarians from the north. If they had been different looking all along they would have been described as such. I am sure there were mixed tribes here and there, but then there were also a lot of mixed mongolian tribes here and there. And yes, those mongolians were also caucasian/asian mixes.

The point is that the original Turks and some still today were 100% asian. Otherwise, genetically it makes no sense:

Altaic Languages:

Mongols: 100% asian looking (today anyway)

Manchu: 100% asian looking

Koreans (which is also counted by some as an altaic language): 100% asian

Turks: ALL mixed people ALL along? I think that's horsecrap. There is plenty of historical proof that Turks were all asian looking at some point in time and that the asian looking Turks today are NOT just that way because they "mixed with Mongols" like some people ignorantly claim.

Mustafa

I don't think you have *any* idea what I am talking about. I am not talking about girls from Turkey but Turkic people in general and their origins. Read the posts above carefully and you might figure it out.

Mustafa

Lol guys don't try to categorize Turks! We're gonna go in circles! If you want to talk Turkic however I think that is an easier subject to discuss.

Turkish is part of the Altai language family, which also includes Japanese and Mongolian. As for Mongols, they are like cousins...Turks and Mongols developed alongside one another however they were always seperate and distinct people. Mongol conquerors often utilized Turkish fighters, and much of the Mongol conquerors armies consisted mostly of Turks, which is why the Turkish culture and language spread West, and not Mongolian.

Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Kyrgyzstan speak dialects of Turkish, which can be learned very easily by one another (just minor differences, but all the sentence structure is the same, very easy to learn by any other Turkic person).

There are autonomous provinces in Russia and China which speak Turkic languages and are Turkic people (Muslims too!). For example, Tatarstan in Russia and Xinjiang in China.

As for Turkey Turks, we are very mixed but in the end we are Turks! We speak Turkish, not Greek or German or Armenian...And we have a very ancient history.. My own family originated from the Caucus (Chechnya, Abkhazia area), but for generations we have spoken Turkish and lived Turkish culture.

As for physical features, today's Turks can be blonde and blue eyed, and I HAVE met Turkey Turks with very heavy Asiatic features, but very very few. Although we do not resemble our ancestors, there is no denying where we are originally from, which is present day Xinjiang.

Turkic people have always looked different from Asians in general, in that even the eastern Turks were classified as Caucasian, or at least described as such by old records. Anyone can have slanted eyes, but its the facial features that people are classified by (like their nose, cheekbones, chin, etc). I know for an absolute fact that no Turkic people are or were Indo-European or Aryan. Turkic is a group of its own!

But remember guys, the way you look or what your ethnic composition is, has no effect on what culture you live, what language you speak, and what religion you believe.

And in short, we may not look like our ancestors, but our ancestor's culture and tongue never left us.

Hello "Turk",

See below for comments.

--Always? First of all...since they are from the same region and belong to the same language family, there is a very high probability that they WERE the same people. Every other claim without proof is just speculation and wishful thinking. There were mongolized turks and turkicized mongols...that does not happen so easily with people that don't consider themselves close to being the same people. They might have actually considered themselves different tribes of the same people.

--They are very similar and it is easier for Turkic people to learn each other's languages, but it is NOT "very easy" to learn Uzbek, for example, for a Turk from Turkey. There are quite a few grammatical differences in addition to many different words. Heck, it's even not all that easy for someone from Istanbul to learn the "real" Turkish that was spoken (and is still spoken) in Anatolia before that so calld "language reform" in Turkey. Istanbul Turkish and the "real" Turkey Turkish even have different grammar and words. Unfortunately, speakers of Anatolian turkish are looked down upon and anyone speaking it feels "uneducated" and tries to learn "standard turkish" to not be belittled. So that language is dying out too with the sanctioning of the government and society in general...sad story... 

--First of all they are not all muslim. Second, I dare you to go try to understand anything a Yakut person is saying or a Tuva!

--Um...that's wishful thinking. When I was a kid in Kayseri (central Anatolia) I had only seen blondes on TV or in Istanbul. And the ones in Istanbul were ALL fake blondes.    It is extremely rare to see real blondes in Turkey and if you do, you can be sure that they are the product of the crusades or the tradition of the ottomans to recruit christian children for the janissary army...now think about that.

--That's wrong. Turks are not from Xinjiang and the people in Xinjiang don't look anything like the "original" Turks. The people in Xinjiang are highly mixed, too. I don't know why people fail to see that the SILK ROAD was going RIGHT THROUGH Turkistan and there were different kinds of people going back and forth to Asia and the middle east. So it's no surprise that all that mixing went on.

The real home of the origina turks seems to have been in present day Mongolia. Check your facts.

--This is just groundless nationalistic talk. How do you know they "always" looked caucasian? Were you there? Just because there were *some* reports about mixed people (including mixed Mongolians by the way) you are concluding that Turks *always* looked caucasian? That makes absolutely no sense. It's the whole "wishful thinking" syndrome again and some subconscious feeling that caucasian must be somehow superior to asian. Not an uncommon thought among Turks of today and a very unfortunate development actually.

--This is the "turanian supremest" in you speaking. This is total nonsense. Turks were NOT a genetic group of their own. They were just asian like anyone else in Mongolia and that region back then.

I hope this sad trend of denial and ignorance wanes some day.

Mustafa

Your point was made after the first sentence (you believe Turks and Mongols were the same people), next time do not proceed saturate your argument with useless statements.

First of all, I will say that I do not like when a Turk cannot speak proper Istanbul Turkish. And different parts of Turkey may have different words but they certainly do not have different sentence structure. That's preposterous.

I have family in Kars so I also know Azeri, but I don't converse with it even with them. "Gidiyrsiz, gelersiz, gidek" etc...What makes you think this accent deserves the label of "real" Turkish as you call it?

Tatars and East Turkestanis are Muslim. Why do you make statements on things you nothing about? Are there any Tatar in your family even? Second, I did not mention anything about Yakut or Tuva people, who are Pagans. Third, I did not say all autonomous Turkic provinces throughout the world are Muslim. In fact, the Gaugazia Turkic people of Moldova have long been Christian!

--Um...that's wishful thinking. When I was a kid in Kayseri (central Anatolia) I had only seen blondes on TV or in Istanbul. And the ones in Istanbul were ALL fake blondes.    It is extremely rare to see real blondes in Turkey and if you do, you can be sure that they are the product of the crusades or the tradition of the ottomans to recruit christian children for the janissary army...now think about that.

Blondes in central Anatolia are indeed rare! However it is not uncommon whatsoever in Izmir or even Kars to see it. There are three blondes in my family, and a cousin with black hair and blue eyes. And I don't recall them being stolen from a Christian family. As for my "wishful thinking", I prefer girls with black hair.

Will you stop rambling? You mention absolutely nothing about Mongolia in your argument, yet you end with the statement "the real home of original turks seems to have been in present day Mongolia", then you tell me to check my facts?

I didn't say Turks always looked Caucasian, I said they always looked different. And if you think I'm biased against Asians (which is absolute nonsense), just keep in mind that my family is from the Caucus . Just kidding, but anyhow, there is no traditional culture I admire more than the Chinese and Japanese. And I'm definitely not a nationalist.

And this is the "AzN pride" in your speaking. Asia is a big place buddy!!!!!!!!!

And thank you for you argument. Or lack thereof.

You know, it's really hard to convince someone by using logic, facts and logical reasoning who is set in his ways.  I will give it one more try...

--I suggest you read my comments above again. It only seems "useless" to you because you have no idea what I am talking about. It is customary in a civilized society to back up arguments with reasoning explaining the same. Maybe you are not used to this kind of thought process...

--Again, you conveniently skipped over half of what I said above. Again, I have a feeling you don't understand a thing I am saying. It does not matter if *you* like it or not when a Turk cannot speak "proper Istanbul Turkish." The need for a common language is obvious, but trying to belittle and extirpate everything else but the Istanbul dialect is just ridiculous. Yes, I speak standard Turkish just fine, but I actually PREFER the Turkish once spoken in Kayseri. It actually makes it MUCH easier for me to learn other Turkic languages, believe it or not. Of course people like you call speakers of regional Oguz dialects of Turkish in Turkey either "illeterate" or "peasants" or claim that they "can't even speak Turkish properly" as if Istanbul Turkish has a god-given claim to being "the only Turkish" dialect spoken in Turkey. Common language, yes, but trying to deny that there are other Oguz dialiects spoken in Turkey is just plain ignorant.

--Oh really? Apperantly you have no clue about Anadolu Turkish to claim that. Or maybe you just think the different grammar is just "wrong" Turkish spoken by "naive" and ignorant peasants who don't even know how to speak "Turkish" properly, right? Let me give you a little lesson in *one* version of Anadolu Turkish (the Kayseri version...but quite common elsewhere too):

"Ben gidiyom" "Sen gidiyong" "o gidiyo" "biz gidiyok" "siz gidiyonguz" "onnar gidiyo(llar)"

Question: "Siz onnarnang gidiyonguzmu?" etc...etc...etc.

Suggestion: "Hading, carsiya gidek!"

Also: There is no such thing as "evet or hayir" to express "yes" and "No" in Anadolu Turkish. We just use the more or less standark Turkic words "He"  and "Yok." I have no idea anyway where "evet" and "hayir" came from...no other Turkic people use those words including (originally) most of Turkey outside Istanbul.

There are many other examples I could give. Are you saying this is just "badly spoken" standard Turkey Turkish? If this is not different grammar from standard Turkey Turkish, then what is it? Oh...I see...it's the language of the "cahil" and uneducated who just don't know any better (the typical comment speakers of this dialect get in Turkey). Funny that I am both educated *and* know better (better than you anyway...haha) and still prefer to speak that language.

--Good for you!    Then your horizon is maybe not as narrow as you make it seem...

--See? There is the belittling again. What's wrong with "Gelersiz, gidek, etc?". Let them speak that language without belittling them in addition to a standard Turkish. By the way, the Azeri dialect of Oghuz Turkish had a HUGE influence on Anadolu Turkish...another reason Istanbul Turkish was chosen as the "standard" in Turkey...according to the motto: "Let's just force a minority dialect on a population whose Turkish is hugely influenced by the Azeri dialect (and other Turkic dialects) and make sure that we belittle them afterwords every time they try to speak their own language."

--So you are calling Azeri an ACCENT? Accent of what? Just to clarify things for you so you are not in the dark for too much longer: Azeri is a Oguz DIALECT!! Not an accent. Just like Istanbul Turkish is an Oguz dialect. Get it?

--As you have already sufficiently proven, you are the source of knowledge for the turkic world.   Or was that source of misinformation?  I think the latter is a more fitting description. For you own good...go do some real research. Read some books that some people recommended here, read some scholarly articles...educate youself. Education is a good thing.

--And how does that fact matter? Does having a Tatar in my family automatically make me an authority on Tatars? Which Tatars? If you actually had done some research you would realize that tons of different people (including Mongols) were called "Tatars" at one point or another in history...

--Pagans, huh? Besides being wrong, this is REALLY a nice thing to say about people huh? I assume you are trying to say the equivalent of "Gavur." According to you everyone but muslims are "gavur", right? Have you ever thought about opening up your mind a little bit?   Again...go do some research to (maybe) figure out what their real religion is.

--Since you so conveniently seem to forget what you said, let me remind you. You babbled earlier: "There are autonomous provinces in Russia and China which speak Turkic languages and are Turkic people (Muslims too!)" 

Last time I checked the Yakuts and Tuva were also living in Russia? No? Maybe they now live in South America or Austrlia...it's been a while since I checked. It's really fun pointing out your nonsense by the way....

--Izmir: blondes are most likely product of the crusades and janissaries. Kars: blondes (and red haired people) are the same or smiliar genotype/phenotype as the people in the Caucasus right across the border who have no Turkic roots.

Having said that...in modern times people move around quite a bit and "spread their seeds" so it's hard to say where these blondes and red haired people originally came from. In any case, the point is that they did NOT originally come from central asia and they were NOT the original turks. Since you always seem to miss the point, I thought I'd remind you of that one more time.

--Good for you!  And how does that prove that the original Turks were blonde and blue eyed? Wait...I got it...YOU and your family are the original Turks!! Wow...were have you guys been so long?  Ok...joking aside...your statement above does not contribute anything to the discussion. My point was that the ORIGINAL turks were not blonde and if they had been you would see a lot more blonde people in ALL of Turkestan, ESPECIALLY in places such as Mongolia, Kirgiztan, Kasachstan etc.  Funny how they all look asian.

--You would not recall that, unless you are several hundred years old.  

--I realize that you are having great difficulty understanding even a fraction of what I am saying, but please try to at least have the courtesy to address what you call "rambling" instead of trying to brush aside your nonsense statements such as "we are from xinjiang."

--Oh really? Let me remind you again (this is getting boringly annoying): You said: "Turkic people have always looked different from Asians in general, in that even the eastern Turks were classified as Caucasian, or at least described as such by old records. "

I even pointed out the relevant part of your (nonsense) sentence above to refresh your seemingly very strained memory.

--If you are not, then why do you speak like every other absolutely clueless Turkish Nationalist I have met, who just know "facts" from hearsay and regurgitate those (nonsense) "facts" ad nauseum without even checking the real facts ONCE?

--Buddy? We're friends now? That was fast..  I am not biased either way, I just don't like it when pure nonsense is being spread although the actual facts are all out there for everyone to see (and research).

--No problem. Anytime you need some solid, real information...seek me out!  I am always here for my "Turkish Brothers" to clarify their confusion.

Mustafa

I think the reason for Turks not looking central asian is because they were a mixed nation of caucases and asian nations from the begining. The huns were also a union of asian nations and they were the ancestors of Turks. But I know that today the people of Turkic republics look like each other and their are similar. But the eastern Turks are more central asian than others. The Azerbaijanis and Turkmens look very similar to Turkey Turks. The more eastern republics ( Uzbekistan, Kyrgizistan) are totally central asian.

You're right about Turks being mixed, however I have my doubts about Azeris even being part of the Turkic nation.

God ! I don't know if you people know about central asia ,I am wondering if you people have ever been there before ,but I know you all are bull sh*ting ( sorry to be rude ) ,when are you people going to tell  the difference between different turks and turkish?

Simply ,central asian don't look like each other ! the conculution above is wrong ! however ,kazak and Kyrgiz are very similiar ,not only the physical features but also language and culture ,they look very like mongolian ,and the pic of kazak in china is the evidence (but some  kazzak in kazakistan look a little different from them ,I guess some of them mixed with russian ,in kazakstan  russian consists of 40 percent of the population ),they keep the most original features of turks,that means turks from the begining shoud be very like mongolian ,but it is very strange that ,from the book Osprey's Attila and the Nomad Hordes ,there is a pic of uyhgur ,they look more like caucasian to me

and this summer I visited the Xinkiang uyghur region of china ,I took a picture of an morden uyghur girl ,

she never looks like mongolian ,i don't know why.

well,uyhgur looks different from place to place though ,they mixed with Tochorian (indo eauropean) largely ,and their ancestor is oghus ,which is also the ancestor of nowdays turkish .well ,so much about the most eastern turks,well some people say turks in china look very like mongolian ,I think they are refering to Kazak and Kyrgiz in china (in china there are 1 million kazaks in Xikiang ),although there are also uyghur looking like mongolian ,but as a whole ,it is safe to say they look more like caucasian !

uzbek ,my nation is from golden horde ,but largely mixed with persian and look more like persian ,about 30 % of  our language is introduced from persian(maybe more ,i heard that 50% ,i AM NOT SURE ,) their archtecture is very usualy ,

well ,for the peoplePresident

and intresetingly ,look at the pics of uyghur dancer in China

they look like each other ,languange is almost the same ,it is very funny !

for tajik

http://www.cac-biodiversity.org/images/tjk/tjk_2004_5.jpg, visit - www.cac-biodiversity.org/images/tjk/tjk_2004_5.jpg, visit this website!

maybe thesepics ,may help !

one more thing ,it is nothing wrong being look like mongolian!

Originally posted by perdon President

Islam Karimov? Looks Russian to me.......

Originally posted by mongke For all you turks think of it like this.  If the babe is hot she's turk if not she is ehhh... ugh...chinese

 well,no turk think that way ! In every nation there are pretty people and ugly people ! what we are talking about is that turk looks like mongolian or caucasion !

for i was born this central asia,I have to say     no one real looks like mongolian but Kyrkiz and Kazak tend to be mongolian  ,but Tajik and Uzbek and Uyghur and tatar tend to be caucation ,I got a pic from friend in eastern Turkistan ,it is a uyhgur girl pic! 

 another pic of uyghurs

What I am trying to say ,even most eastern turk don't look like chinese or mongolian ,let alone the Uzbek and Tajik and Turkmen!!!!!!!

One more thing ,TURK GIRLS indeed are HOT !!!!!!!!!!!!  

 LOOOOOOOOOL! Chinese and MOngolian and other asian ,I almost get sick when I look at their eyes!they have the most ugly eyes ,but ther are also hot eastern asian though!!!

How come there are so many damn racists here? When will people start opening up their minds just a little bit?

You are a disgrace to your people perdon! Shame on you! I hope not everyone in Uzbekistan is like that.  

Don't worry about this guy, Chono.  This is what happens when people forget or deny where their roots are and where they came from. This guy is more proud about the fact that there is persian mixed in him than about his east asian genes. Very typical attitude of a lot of Turkic people nowadays it seems. Very sad trend....and ignorant too!

Not just the turkic tribes you mentioned look like mongolians, but there is ample historical, genetic and logical evidence that *all* the original Turks looked like Mongolians (or do the Mongolians just look like the original Turks?  .

Funny, how the mongols and turks (especially under Jengiz Khan) are referred to as Turko-Mongols recognizing that they are more or less the same people.  That does not seem to have gotten into some people's heads.

I really hope that the majority of Uzbeks don't think this way....This kind of racist thought is truly DISGUSTING!

Take care,

Mustafa

nice pictures

i knew it  they dont look like east asians

and i think all nations has their special beautiness

but as far as i know the turk in china doesnt look like chinese

Some would think it extremely ignorant to believe Turks and Mongols are the same people. The occupation force in Iraq is many times referred to as "Anglo-American" but that's to describe a political entity, not a culture or race. In fact the Huns were more commonly referred to as such by means of political identification, not race, because Indian and European records depicted them as Caucasian, although they came from the East.  

As for the repulsive comments by perdon...  An East Asian company probably made the computer you used to type those comments.

Turk,

Again, you have not understood at all what I said. This whole time I have been talking about the "original turks", so why would I refer all of a sudden to modern turkic people now?  Although some turkic people are still steppe people and some mongols are steppe people, Turks are now mostly sedentary and racially highly mixed and mogols are becoming more and more sedentary also. 

When I say "Turko-Mongols" I am refering to turks and mongols of old times when they used to live in the same place and had the same culture. Get it?

As to your "huns were caucasians" theory...it's nonsense. Forget about it. If you have not noticed yet, steppe people were recruiting heavily from the populations of people they defeated, so it's not surprising that conquered people report seeing non-asian looking people. You really should go and read up on steppe people a little bit to get a an idea about what I am saying. The original people who recruited from the defeated people were asian through and through.

Read the following article before it disappears from the internet. It shows how the the original huns and avars that arrived in Europe were fully asian genetically as proven by examinations of hun and avar graves in Europe. Later on, as they conquered other people and recruited from them AND mixed with them, you start seeing genetically mixed huns and avars.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:88z3wEgPGEoJ:www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/chapter-VII2.htm+huns+buryat+skulls&hl=en - http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:88z3wEgPGEoJ:www.fikas. no/~sprocket/snpa/chapter-VII2.htm+huns+buryat+skulls&hl =en

So stop that nonsense about "huns were caucasian" (which would lead to "turks have always been caucasian since they come from the huns" nonsense type of circular reasoning based on a false premise).

It did not need an article like this to figure this out, since pure logic  and historical research could have shown you this, but for people like you that just don't want to give up their nonsense "turks were always caucasian" theory, one needs to go further and explain some more and hope that they finally get it in the end.

I sincerely hope that you really will understand better in the end. It's frustrating to try to explain the ovious so many times.

Mustafa

Kyrgyz couple on their wedding day

Kyrgyz artists

--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------

Kazakh artists

CooL!!!!! It seems racist are not welcome here !

I am so sorry about what i said ! if it hurts someone who is chinese or some other estern asian ,I Apologize for that ,guys!

Uzbek is not racist at all! However ,Mustafa .I don't know if you are american ,but mustafa is an Arbic name ,right ,if you are ,I am sorry to remind you of two things ,one is Martin Luther king (he is famous for what)!the other is that how amrican troops treat irag captureed soldiors!

For the chinese ,I have to say ,you people treat Turks in China too bad ,you are not quolified to say the other nation is racist!

I never denied turks are from mongolia ,I think you people didn't read my post closly !

but I cannot stand you mr_known -nothings  damn talking about central asia people physical features !that is enough!

as to TURKs in TURkey  ,yes they are mixed ,but they are eauropean looking not central asian ,and I love turkish girls!

another thing ,there is a word to discribe eastern asian ,that is ,hetailar ,every turk in central asia understand it ! that express the feeling of turks towards eastern asian !

warning !!!!!!!!!!!!,this page should be talked about if turkish look like central asian not about central asians physical look!

sorry again ,as to Chono ,no one welcomes you to Uzbekistan !

I never said Huns were Caucasian. Stop twisting my posts.

You seem to be hooked on the idea that I advocate the image of the "Caucasian Turk", that maybe some of the elite in Turkey once envisioned during the early days of the Republic.

I said ancient sources depicted Huns as Caucasian, although they came from the East (which made them of course Asian). And I even went further to explain that the term Hun became a political entity, because like you said, they recruited conquered peoples. I didn't refute anything you just mentioned here.

You really need to stop arguing for no reason and provide a clear thesis before doing so..

Perdon

Social darwinism is evil. Some Turks look like Central Asians, some don't. Just because some girl is bonde or blue eyed doesn't make her any less a Turk than the one who has black hair and almond eyes.

Your physical features have no impact on the culture you adopt, period. I was talking with some friends the other day, one of which was a Korean Christian, the other of which was an Anglo-American Buddhist. See what I mean.

 This is certainly a disease throughout Central Asia and rampant among many. Try having to put up with Azeris. Let's just forget about them.

Ok. I think this topic really got out of the way! But the only single thing that I will mention is the difference between OGHUZ and other TURK�C nations...

Firstly... Today, the Oguz people rule three countries...

Turkey, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan...

A Turkmen woman and two Turkmen girls...

An old Turkmen in a bazaar...

 The president of Turkmenistan, T�rkmenba��...

A traditional Turkmen girl.

The Oguz people were mostly living in central and western terrattorries even before the Gokturks, and during the Hun rule. They were nomads, so they migrated to eastern Caspian terrattorries and todays khazakstan during the Hun rule. In the G�kt�rk Writings, they are always called as "Oguz" and as a different group of people living under the rule of G�kt�rks, a western Turkish tribe...

The Oguz people were divided into two main groups. Eastern Oguz (BOZOK) and western Oguz (��OK). The builders of the Seljuk Empire, Ottoman Empire are both western Oguz people, ��OK...

The Oguz are a Turkic group who speak a Turkic language, own a central asian culture and belong the mixed race of caucasian and central asian. And even today, a person who is travelling all Turkic republics would see that the Kyrgz, Kazak look very central asian, but others not. I know that lots of people in Turkmenistan looks some central asian, but they are not very much and most of them are Kyrgz and Kazak. Also I accept that lots of people, maybe more than the half of modern Turkey population is partly mixed with other nations. But this doesnt show that the reason that Turks dont look central asian ( most of Turkey's Turks) is because of mixing with Anatolians and Middle Easterns. This is because we were some Caucasian and some central Asian since we became nomads.

This is the destiny of the real nomad... I think from the beginning, being a "Turk" doesn't represent being the same race... From The Hun, G�kt�rk times to the Ottoman period, it was the common culture, common goal, and the common fathers that meant being a "Turk"...

--I can almost assure you that pretty much *all* of the population of Turkey are mixed people. The nomadic turks that came to present day Turkey did not have enough numbers to settle newly conquered territories with their own people. So, people living there were "turkicized" and the few original turks themselves who remained there mixed into the population. That's reality and genetic and historic analysis can prove that easily. 

 "Maybe more half of the the population of modern Turkey is partly mixed" (as you said above) is just (once again) wishful thinking about a genetically distinct population in Turkey. It's just not reality. The vast majority of Turks today look either greek or middle eastern in general and a lot of them (especially from Trakya and Istanbul areas) even look like they are from the Balkans and other, more northerly parts of Europe. That's nowhere close to the look of the racially mixed populations of central asia today.

Mustafa

i think they belive that they are Turkic orgin

and the name turkey may be chosen by Mustafa kamal Ataturk 

?

Wow, okay......

First of all, Ataturk means "Father Turk", not "horseman turk" (where do you people come up with this stuff?). Ata is not the Turkish word for horse, it is the old Turkish word for father. Do not confuse it with the word at (meaning horse).

The Osmanli Imparatorlugu (Ottoman Empire) was named after it's founder, Osman. You forget that after the disentegration of the Seljuk Empire there were NUMEROUS Turkic clans in Anatolia attempting to reassert control. The clan of Osman happened to be the most successful obviously, but they were all Turks part of a certain clan. That simple. For example in Japan there were numerous clans (named after their founders) during the civil wars, but they were all still Japanese.

If someone back in those days asked what ethnicity you were, "Ottoman" was not a sufficient answer. There were always Turks, Greeks, Albanians, Hungarians, Egyptians, etc. These ethnic groups and cultures did not disappear after the entity known as the Ottoman Empire asserted control over their homelands.

Mustafa is right in saying that Turks being part of an exact or distinct ethnic group is just wishful thinking. Turkish is a culture not based whatsoever on your physical description. Identifying the similarities or differences etc of cultures by how much the peoples face's look like one another is absolutely absurd.

Omid, your political beliefs about us have no relevance to the topic. If you want to rant about Turks and our politics (an irani national pastime) do it elsewhere without hijacking a thread.

Blitz,

Where the heck are you getting this type of ridiculous information from? As "Turk" has said above, "Ata" means "father" or "forefather" and "Ataturk" means "father of the turks."  "Ata" is still used in many other Turkic languages as the word for "father" (as in Uzbek, for example).  This is what happens when someone knows of fragments of Turkish.....such a person makes a horse out of a father.

As to the Ottomans, "Turk" already explained above, but let me add that Europeans themselves at that time would call the Ottomans simply Turks and not "Ottomans", when they were refering to them. Everyone knows that...you're not the best informed person out there, are you, "Blitz?"

Mustafa

It was not political view it was an answer to blitz quotes.

I tell whatever I want and if you have any objection there are moderators who will hear you.

National Iranian pastimes are Arabs,Islam,and mullahs.You are not interesting enough.

This is the last time I will answer such meaningless quotes.

And now the Topic:

I will confirm one time more :

It is impossible for a group of nomads to do any significant changes in the genetics of a sedentary nation,unless they sweep all of the population and no seljuks and no other turkomens tribes and no ottomans did such a thing i the Anatolia.
So the most populations of turkey nowadays are remenants of the older populations of Anatolia.

I will try to explain shortly.

Societies are not rigid structures.  Are Germans of Germany today are the same as their ancestors of 1500 years ego? Or what about Austrians? It is supposed Germans to be blond but even in countries considered German in origin, we see a very important non-blond population. We see an important Arab influence on Spanish people even on their culture, just look at their music. Or are the English people look like their Angle-Saxon ancestors?

Today�s Turks are a mixture of Oghuz Turks (Uighurs, Tocharians, Sakas, Sogdians, Uzbeks, Persians and Mongolians), Kuman-Kipchaks Turks (Crimean Tatars), converted Anatolian and Balkan populations including Albanians, Serbs, Bulgars, Greeks etc., Caucassians including Caucassian Turks, Adige, Georgians and Armenians and same Middle Eastern peoples such as Kurds and Arabs to a lesser extent.

If we dig in we get a more complicated issue since when we say �Balkan populations�, we also include an important number of Turkish tribes who were living in Balkans even before Turks arrived to Anatolia but most of them have been converted during time. For example Bulgars are a Turkic tribe. The name of the Bulgar ruler who first accepted Christianity is Omurtag Kagan was Turkic. Later due to religious and growing Slavic influences they have lost their Turkic identity. Along with Bulgars we know that there were important Turkish tribes such as Pechenegs, Guz (Oghuzs), Kumans who had come and settled in Balkans and later accepted Christianity and disappeared.  Some of them have been settled in Anatolia by Byzantines and they served in Byzantine armies.  Before this, Huns in Europe were the first known Turkic tribe, which doesn�t mean that they were the first since we simply do not know if there were other Turkic elements came before them to Europe. Again Avars who were possibly Turkic had played important role in European history too. I think even the name Bavaria (Avaria) in Germany may be a heritage of them.

We dig in more and we saw that Selchuk Beg, the founder of Selchuks who will be the first known Turks came to Anatolia from the east was the son of one of the commanders of Khazar Kagan, has accepted Islam in Cend, Iran in 985. His sons� name were Mikhail, Israil showing a big possibility that he was a Jews. (Khazars were a Turkic tribe forming the western edge of Kokturk Empire who were accepted Judaism. It is tought that Eastern Europe�s Jews have Khazar and so Turkic origin. If you watch Discovery Channel you will see Karaim Turks Jews who were living in Lithuania and Poland speaking Turkish and they are caucausoid. It seems like they are the latest one who remember their roots but we see Turkish in the surnames of many East European (Askhenazi) surnames.) I have written this to indicate how this issues are complicated.

Turks came to Anatolia from the east during hundreds of years starting with Menzigert in 1071 until Chenggis Khan attacks on Transoxiana and Khorasan. Especially number of refugees escaping from Ghenggis Khan was huge.  

This is wrong claiming in that �most Turks on the coast lines are converted Greeks�. First of all great majority of Anatolian Greeks are converted Anatolians. Akhas from whom the name of Hellenes derived had come to Anatolia from the Dorian pressure and we do not know if the Dorians were speaking a Greek language at the beginning. What we known, after a dark period in Greece, Dorians (mainland Greeks) were speaking a sort of Greek. It is not possible to claim that Dorians were kin to Akhas. From that point of view the famous Trojan War parties are related with today�s Anatolian Turks but not mainland Greeks. So calling Hellenes for today�s Greeks is wrong. Only in times of Macedonian Alexander the Greek culture has started to spread even if Greeks were not considered him as Greek but they were forced to accept him so. All of these happened nearly 2500 years ego. It is very hard to claim that today�s Greeks are related with ancient Greeks or to some extent they are related with them. The population structure of the area was changed so that Athens was a small village in 15^th century.

The Anatolian Turks do not look Central Asian since the population structure has changed in Central Asia too. We can not say that Turks were originally Mongoloid or not, since talking about an origin is beyond our scope of knowledge. The �homeland� of nations is still a matter of discussion in academic arena and there is not a consensus on it neither for Indo-Europeans nor Turks. Even if we get concrete information that they were Mongoloids, this will not change the fact that they have mixed with all other nations on their long way to Anatolia and gained their caucausoid features. It is generally accepted that Turks� homeland is in Altais. We have both Caucosid and Mongolid skeletons there.    

Chono is right. Look at the Chinese chronicals��. You can also look at Byzantine choronicals who have been diplomatic relations with Kokturks, who send and accepted diplomatic envoys. Byzantines relates Turks with Scythians.

It is not like this. There is not a concept like �real Turk� which was invented in 20s and 30s. It is an undeniable fact that there is a clear link between Turkey�s Turks and Central Asia. A new identity was a must since as the main body of Ottoman Empire Turks had preserved their stance of Ottoman identity until the end, which in fact emptied by nationalism of other components of the Empire. Like every other nation states Turks have established their own nation state and as a nation how do you expect that they can deny their past in Central Asia? But they have also included Anatolian civilization in this identity too. For example the symbol of new capital, Ankara is the symbol of Hittites (the Hittite Sun).   

So I think blitz says that we should change the name of our country. So what do you propose blitz? LOL

Anatolia had first called as Turkey by Crusaders in 11^th century.

You are thinking the same for all nations, I hope Mustafa�..

It seems like you do not know the old saying "Nomads do it better". (An old Persian (not Iranian) proverb)

Anyway, they were not all nomads. I think you have to get more info about steppes social structure and Turkish settled cities in Central Asia and Iran. 

ALPARSLAN

I was talking about the Byzantine times, not the ANCIENT times. Most of the peoples in Anatolia were Byzantine greeks, and when TUrkish rule came apon them, many converted for various reasons, some for taxes, and some were taken and to be converted and trained in the great jannisary, or just overtime lost  contact with there greek culture and became accepted in the mainstream. Of course, there are always exceptions.

i read something intersting about Turkish orgin

it is not Logic but it was written hunderds of years ago in an Arabic History books written by Ibn Katheer  the books name is (Albedayah wa Alnehayah)  which means (The Beginning and The End)

any way it mention that Prophet Noah had three sons Ham, Sam and Yafath (Japheth) in english

and from Japheth the Turkish came and they were called Turk is from the Arabic word Tarak which means (left behind 

why?

because when Dhu alqarneen (Two Horned man) locked Yajoj and Majoj (Gog and Magog) he left a third group which called the Turk ( the left behind)

 which means Dhu algarneen left them behind and didnt lock them with Gog and Magog in the Dam.

You are too much undermining both Byzantines and Turks. Byzantine Greeks and Anatolia cannot be converted with a few hundred thousands Turks. Anatolia has been ruined both structurally and economically by crusades during 12 and 13 th centuries. Turks had come to Anatolia during hundreds of years. In addition to this there were converted Turks inside Byzantine society too.  

It is sure that there are also converted Byzantine Greeks to Islam but their number was not that much from which you conclude that "Turks are converted Greeks".

As far as jannisaries are concerned young Christian childs have been collected every 2, 3 or sometimes 5 years according to needs of the state and army. The parties were usually containing 2 or 3 thousands youngsters. This system has been used for around 350 years. Jannisaries were not allowed to get married until they are retired. They were living in barracks. So their influence on Turkish society today is not as much as you think. 

Very scientific indeed!!!

well i mentioned that it is not logic

that was how people long time ago think of turks

corrected.

It's sickening how some people manipulate religion to make other Muslims believe something when they are really just preaching their own culture (I'm referring to the author of that article you read).

--Actually, they probably are very similar. Germanic people have been a very homogeneous society, although recently that might be changing. I lived in Germany for most of my life and know Germany's and Europe history very well. Since these people were sedentary they would not leave their villages and settlements pretty much all their lives. Until modern times the typical German or central european would not go further than maybe 30km within the circumference of his/her village/settlement. They would pretty much be born an die in the same place. There was not a whole lot of mixing going on there if at all.

When wars took place and different rulers gained or lost land they new ruler would just take over and start collecting taxes. They would not settle new people in the conquered areas. So...again..no mixing.

You have to admit that this is vastly different from what we are talking about here. Steppe nomads would cover more space in a day than a German would cover in his/her whole lifetime!

Plus...with Turks we are talking about mixture between caucasians and asians. In Central Europe it would just be different tribes of caucasians and it would not make such a huge difference on their genotype and  phenotype.

--Nobody ever seriously says that ALL Germans should be blondes. That's ridiculous. Blondes are generally rare among caucasians although they occur at higher frequencies in northern Europe and among Germanic people. Even places like Sweden or Norway are not all blonde or red haired. In any case...see above...these are all caucasian..blonde or not. Not all asians have jet-black hair either by the way. I know some chinese people personally who have pretty light brown hair with an asian face and they are not mixed with caucasians. Also, there was quite a bit of mixture going on in asian countries, too, but you would not notice that all that much in the phenotype. If Turks, assuming they were originally asian, which makes total sense by the way, had mixed with Koreans, you would not consider Turks a "mixed population" today. So the comparison with a "mixed" German population is like comparing apples with oranges.

--All caucasian people and all sedentary people. See above. Plus, the Maurs that conquered half of spain back then are probably, at least to a degree if not fully, genetic descendants of tribes like the Vandals that migrated to North Africa from Northern Europe and probably mixed with the original population. 

--Since when are Uighurs part of the Oguz? Since when are Tocharians even Turkic? Since when are Sakas Turkic? Persians? Mongols? I hope you were just enumarating the different peoples that *might* have mixed with the turks instead of implying that the poepl ementioned int he parantheses are Oghuz.

--I'm sorry but this is just total nonsense. The real name of "Bavaria" in German is actually "Bayern", which does not sound anything like "Avar" and the name "Bayern" was derived from the name of a Germanic tribe called "Bajuwaren" in German. They had absolute NOTHING to do with the avars. Where in the heck are you getting *misinformation* like that? This is the type of typical Turkish "wishful thinking" I have been refering to all over this thread. It's as if Turks had a hand in EVERYTHING that happened in world history....this is simply not reality.

--Umm...so what the Byzantines compard the Turks to Scythians? This just says that they compared them culturally and NOT genetically or by look. After all...the Scythians were the nomads known best to the Byzantines from antinquity. This does not prove anything. And as I have already told Chono, the couple times chinese pointed out unusual featers among *SOME* Turkic tribes does not mean that Turks always had caucasian blood in them or, as some extremists claim, descended from caucasians. Obviously, the vast majority of the time the Chinese did NOT point out any unuusual physical features about the Turks, which should imply that they were just as asian lookin as anyone else in that area of Asia at that time.

[

You are thinking the same for all nations, I hope Mustafa�E

--Yes....I am...but to different degrees as I have tried to demonstrate with the Germans above. But again....don't compare apples with oranges. Turks were nomads and most of the world wasn't. So, you can compare turks best only to other nomads.

Mustafa

"That means non-Oghuz Turks such as Kazakhs, Uigurs, Tajiks and Kirgizs have more mongolid genes and background than the Oghuz Turks." Is there any reason that you called Tajiks as Turks?!!

What about Turks of southern Iran?

Young children of Turkashvand tribe in Khuzestan

Qashqai girl from Fars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_Turks - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_Turks

Everything is written here...

Here we go again....this is getting really frustrating. Do they teach any kind of logiccal thinking in Turkey anymore?  I hope this is just a language problem and not a general problem of logical thinking.

--Do you think the "Oghuz" Turks developed all by themselves in central asia? People don't develop independently from each other and share the same genes and culture. All Turkic people go back to the same root and if you want to answer the question "What did Turks originally look like" you have to go back in time before Turks starting moving westward and mixing with other people. That was (most likely) even before there were any Oghuz or Kazak.  Does it make sense to you now?

--So, I am sure that the Oguz Turks were always in those places listed by you, right? I am sure they are not from central asia, right? (attention: SARCASM!). Have you been reading this thread at all? Do you even know what we are talking about? Everyone knows that currently most of the Turkic world is mixed...that's not the question here. The question (for some people anyways since it's clear to me) is if Turks originally were asian or caucasian. Get it? Now go back and read the other posts in this thread a little more thoroughly as to not waste other people's times repeating things that have already been said.

--Oh really? And did YOU just establish that? The level of ignorance here is amazing....why don't you go tell this to some asian looking Turkmens in Turkmenistan? In any case, although most of the Oguz nowadays are caucasian or caucasian looking, that does not mean that they were ORIGINALLY caucasian....again, go back and read the previous posts. Having to explain to you what "Oghuz" turks really are is just a waste of time.

--My God...I really feel like apologizing for the level of ignorance you are displaying. People are going to think that ALL Turks from Turkey are ignorant like you (and some others here) and lack any kind of logical thinking skills.

First of all...TAJIKS ARE NOT TURKS. There is a HUGE Uzbek Minority there (over 1 million people), but the Tajiks themselves are neither culturally nor linguistically Turks. They are a persian people. Second, we discussed SEVERAL TIMES above WHY Kazaks, Uigurs etc. have more east asian genes than Turks in Turkey. Were you reading any of that at all before posting your nonsense here? You don't even have any idea what the Topic here is, haven't thoroughly read any of the discussion before and come here and waste people's time by posting something that is not only utterly wrong but totally misses the point. This is hardly excusable by saying: "Oh..the poor guy has a language problem. His English might not be all that goodl."

--Oh my god....what an authoritative and scientific source.   Do you even know what Wikipedia is? It's an encyclopedia that can be changed by ANYONE on the internet. I could go in there right now and write: "The Oghuz Turks are originally from the Amazon forest in South America and are closely related to the Yanomami tribe." and Wikipedia would accept it and display this "fact" to the whole world.

With sources like this, no wonder you miss the point totally and have no idea what you are talking about. Why make yourself ridiculous if you are not even sure what you are talking about?

Mustafa

---Hahaha...this is so ignorant it's almost funny. "Everything" is written there.   YOu also seem to not have realized that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that can freely be changed and enhanced by ANYONE! Yes, even you could go there and spread your ignorance, and other people just like you could post a link to your crap to back up their own ignorant arguments. Does that make sense to you?

Let me just clarify for everyone else that I don't think all of Wikipedia is crap, but that it just has no scientific value if it can be changed by anyone out there regardless of his/her qualifications.

Turko,

I agree with you, but that is not what the topic is here. The topic started with the question "What does the typical Turk look like?". After we established that there no typical "turkish/turkic" look I brought up the issue of the genetic origins of all the Turks way back in history. That's what we are discussing now and the discussion is not just limited to the Turks in Anatolia.

Mustafa